syhuang

My take is that there are lots of fans out there aren't familiar with the detail and just see the 59% or 60% numbers while they aren't aware of the 1 billion exemption in last CBA. It probably prompts Smith to make a clarification like his statement as following. Besides, he does say 53% of all revenues and it matches what they got last year, ie. 59% of the share pool (total revenues minus 1 billion). "NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent. " This is just my take though.

Just one small correction, what Smith said about 53% was of all revenues, not after owners took 1 billion. Basically it's the same thing, (9.2 - 1) * 59% ~= 9.2 * 53%. I think he just tried to make it clear that players didn't take 59% or 60% of all revenues since they took 59% after owners took 1 billion first, which is equivalent to 53% of all revenues last year. "NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent. "

Just want to share these pictures, they are actually quite funny (not for Miami fans). Link 1 Link 2

The problem is that Heat has little cap room to work with: Heat salary cap status. Furthermore, NBA owners are trying to push for hard cap like NHL. If that happens, it'll make Heat even harder to improve their team.

The same can be said to players threatening a strike which lead to owners accepting a bad CBA in 2006. The bottom line is that both sides are responsible for the current lockout.

Owners don't need to provide whatever data players asked during negotiation. In fact, even owners don't need to comply players' request, owners offered 5 year financial data to an independent 3rd party but it was rejected by players. Also, it's no secret that owners have been prepared for lockout for some time. They were unprepared in 2006 during last CBA negotiation when players threatened a strike. Players got what they want in revenue share percentage and this time owners are prepared to get some of them back. Both sides want as much money as possible, but unlike last time, owners have the upper hand this time. The sooner players realize last CBA is fulfilled and they are now negotiating a new deal, the better chance a deal can be reached. Players want the same share like last CBA and owners don't want to give them this time. This is a new negotiation, owners don't need to explain why they reject any proposal.

I was replying to your statement of NFLA fighting for all members for revenue share, when it's not that simple. For your question, I think others' point is that revenue is expected to grow with TV contracts being back-loaded. Thus, even the percentage of what players get is lower, the amount is still higher than before. Basically when the pie is bigger, even though you get a smaller percentage, you still get a bigger piece of pie than before.

Actually owners beef'd health care, retirement, and so on in their offers right before lockout but was rejected. In fact, it affects star players much more than medium and average players. Since last CBA, salary cap increases by ~50% but median player salary only increases by 9.7%. It's a simple math to understand that when median grows much slower than total growth, the upper half of players get most benefit. This is percentage, not amount, so don't say it's normal because star players get bigger contracts. Again, this is percentage of salary growth. If NFLPA actually cares about medium and average players, they should ask for higher minimum salary and more guarantee money in small contracts. But no, they are fighting for revenue share, which benefits star players much more than medium and average players. And who suffers more during lockout? It's the medium and average players. But they are sacrificed to fight for revenue share benefited most to star players. The above is not as simple as you think. Your argument is that they don't open the books because they can't prove it if they open their books. However, there may be other reasons preventing owners from doing so. For example, maybe small market owners want to, but big market owners don't. Of course, we don't know what exactly the reason is. But it is not correct to assume the only reason is that they can't prove it if they open books.

Exactly, owners don't need to open their book for whatever reason, maybe it's that not all owners agree to do so, or for other reasons. The point is owners don't have to justify why they option out last CBA since both sides agreed that either party could option out without cause. As for public perception, both sides lost a lot of it already. Opening books or not isn't going to change it. The bottom line is that the last CBA is fulfilled and they are negotiating a new CBA. Owners are prepared for lockout now much better than 2006 when players threatened a strike during last CBA negotiation.

Good, you now finally agree that owners don't need to justify why they option out the old CBA like you said earlier as following: As for whether to open their books during negotiation, owners also don't have to do that. They are negotiating a new CBA. It's upon them to decide what information they want to provide, what information they don't. NFLPA also has the same freedom to do so during negotiation. It just like the last CBA negotiation where players never justified why they threatened a strike, which resulted in owners accepted players' term right before the deadline. You are also wrong by saying what caused lockout is owners optioned out last CBA while you keep ignoring what happened during last CBA negotiation. What caused lockout is that both sides fail to agree on a new CBA after last CBA is fulfilled and ended as both sides agreed. If you wanted to say what triggers this, you can't simply ignore last CBA negotiation and players got what they wanted in last CBA. Owners are under no obligation to not option out and don't need to justify anything.

And you call it's not a conspiracy theory when you try to use one case to imply other franchises even though you said you didn't do that. I really don't care why owners don't open their books, either it's not all owners agree to do so, or it is some other theories. Owners don't need to open their books based on the agreement in last CBA to option out from it.

Excuse me, which part of "without cause" do you not understand? Owners don't need to prove anything. NFLPA agreed that either party could option out of last CBA without cause. But once owners did that, NFLPA didn't follow the agreement and started to ask for proof.

The whole thing actually began in last CBA negotiation when player threatened a strike. Owners avoided the crisis and accepted last CBA right before deadline in order to buy more time to prepare for this CBA negotiation. Players got what they wanted in revenue share percentage. The last CBA had an opt out clause for both parties to end the agreement without cause or reason with notice. It means the original agreement is not working as one hoped, and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, "without cause" means owners do not need to provide anything or explain anything to players, including financial data. However, after owners optioned out, NFLPA still played media and wanted a proof of the cause, even though NFLPA agreed owners could option out "without cause" in last CBA, Some people like to say owners dump the last CBA or owners break the last CBA. No, owners followed the agreement to option out last CBA.And both sides agreed either party could option out "without cause". As for your conspiracy theory of owners not opening their books, it's fairly simple. While some teams, especially small market teams, are struggling, there are teams like Cowboys still earned a lot of money. If not all owners agree to open books, they can't do it. It's all or nothing.

In owners' proposal before lockout, they reduced the amount to something like 1.3 billion. I may not remember the exact number correctly, but I believe it is more close to 1 billion than 2 billions. However, that's not the point of my post. My point is that NFLPA made a so called 50-50 split proposal which makes little difference compared to last CBA. But after it was rejected by owners, union used 59% number in old CBA and 50% in their proposal to make it sound like a lot and play victim role in media.

Okay, my bad. So it's 7 billion in shared pot after owners take 1 billion. If owners doesn't take 1 billion beforehand, the share pot will be 8 billion. It doesn't change the fact that the difference in last CBA and NFLPA's so called 50-50 split proposal is much smaller than they claim. In last CBA, players got 7*59%=4.13 billion. In their so called 50-50 split proposal, it is (7+1)*50%=4. Players only take (4.13-4)/4.13=3.1% less of what they previously get or (4.13-4)/8=1.625% less of the whole pot. The point is that NFLPA plays victim role too hard in media and simply plays numbers games here. The difference in their so called 50-50 split proposal is so small that union knew owners would reject it. But then they could claim they sacrifice a lot in this so called 50-50 split proposal when they actually do not. This is one of the tricks union used so they can play victim role in media

Ha Ha, after making personal attacks, you now want to make multi claim. Do you really think that anyone agrees with me is my multi and anyone agrees with you (if any) is your multi? And again, I disagree with you. Owners run their teams individually more than you want to believe and have more control of their teams than you realize. You seem to think that owners only follow orders from their CEO (NFL? Goodall?) when that is not the fact. Owners are also in the decision making for important league wide issues, for example, voting for accepting CBA, rule changes, etc.

Exactly. Union spends too much time in media to complain about owners and play victim role. For example, In February, Union claimed they made a so called 50-50 split proposal but owners rejected it. They then made it sound like owners were so greedy that even union reduced their share from 59% to 50%, owners didn't take it. This is not the fact at all. In last CBA, owners take 1 billion first and then players take 59%. In this NFLPA proposal, players would take 50% without owners taking any penny beforehand. Union just plays numbers games and tries to fool fans to stand by their side. What is the difference between these two in what players actually take? Very little. NFL's profit is 7 billion according Smith himself (link). Players previously took (7-1) * 59% = 3.54 billion in last CBA. In their so called 50-50 split proposal, players would take 7*50% = 3.5 billion. The difference is only (3.54-3.5)/3.54 = 1.1%, much less than what NFLPA made it sound like. The difference is so small that union knew owners would reject it. But then they could claim they sacrifice a lot in this so called 50-50 split proposal when they actually do not. This is one of the tricks union used so they can play victim role in media. See, you really like to make personal attack when people don't agree with you. I guess you just can't stand people have different opinion as yours and like to call other opinions silly or call others having problems with reading comprehension. I understand what you said perfectly but don't agree with you. Let me say it again: You are wrong. Owners have more control of their teams than you realize.

No problem. You are wrong. Owners have more control of their teams than you realize.

This is incorrect. Owners may hire people to handle different stuff so they don't need to do every little thing themselves, but owners also have final say of executive decisions, including looking at profit report and decide what direction the team should go or what changes needed to be made etc.

Apology accepted. And it may actually be more complicated than you realize.

It's not a secret that NFL owners have been prepared for the long time. But why does it have anything to do with your claim that, because owners aren't the ones negotiating each individual contract, they can't pursue total expenses to playersin CBA talks to increase their profit? Ha Ha, making personal attack only makes you look bad and less credit. I guess you don't like people disagree with you. Let me say it again: Owners are the ones looking at their profit and decide whether it's enough or not. When they don't like their profit, they make the decisions to increase it, either increase their income or reduce their expense. Last time I checked, owners still "own" their teams or at least majority of the shares. They are not just minority shareholders. Owners are the ones having final says of executive decisions

My bad, I should have said profit. It doesn't change the point of my question: Do you say that because owners aren't the ones negotiating each individual contract, they can't pursue that in CBA talks to increase their profit? In this case, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Owners are the ones looking at their profit and decide whether it's enough or not. When they don't like their profit, they make the decisions to increase it, either increase their income or reduce their expense. BTW, last time I checked, owners still "own" their teams or at least majority of the shares. They are not just minority shareholders. Owners are the ones having final says of executive decisions.

Right, when there is a CBA, salary is fixed and owners can't change it. However, when there is no CBA, owners can pursue the total expense they want to spend on players in CBA negotiation. Do you say that because owners aren't the ones negotiating each individual contract, they can't pursue that in CBA talks to increase their revenue?

I don't quite get your point, are you really saying that owners shouldn't decide how much they want to pay players because they are not the ones negotiating contracts with each player? There are people hired by owners to handle different kinds of stuff, including negotiating players' contracts. However, when owners don't like their revenue, they make the decisions to either increase income or save money from different kind of places, including (pursuing) lower expenses to players. It is just like other big companies where CEOs don't negotiate pay rate with each individual employee. But when a CEO feels his company spends too much on employees, he makes the decision to reduce personnel costs. Sometimes it is to lay off some employees, sometimes it is to make them take a pay cut, sometimes it's to move his factories to other countries with lower average salary, etc.

Yes, I also posted the same thing there too. I see the median salary increase percentage few times in different articles. I just did a google search and the following are several links listed: link 1 link 2 link3 The median NFL salary increase from 2006 to 2009 (last season with salary cap) is actually even lower at 9.4% (somehow I remember it at 9.7%). Anyway, it further confirms that star players benefit much more from players' share increase in last CBA. NFLPA is basically fighting for star players while sacrificing average and bottom players consider players' share percentage affects star players much more while things (minimum salary, etc) benefit average and bottom players aren't what prevent both sides from reaching a new CBA.